October 20, 2014, 01:19:04 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dtaylor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53
1
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 19, 2014, 04:14:35 AM »
In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.

If you need to post process the crop image to match the FF, then it's not a "wash". It's the crop getting its ass handed to it.

Because 50% or less USM is such a HUGE difference OMG! ::)

2
To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

iTR tracking, AF points over a wider area of the VF, and light flicker compensation. That and fps would certainly make the 7D2 the better choice for some sports situations, but the 5D3 is no slouch in those situations.

The 7D2 will also remote control Canon flashes. Not a big deal, there are plenty of equipment options to add this to the 5D3.

3
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 06:29:57 PM »
I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side  ???

Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.

The flip side is that the same thing happens when you honestly compare FF vs. crop, same FoV and print size and all of their pixels, at low to mid ISO. A landscape photo with an 11mm on crop and a 17mm on FF. OOC you can see a difference, but after post processing...good luck telling them apart, even at 36". In fairness, in difficult situations FF files can take harder processing, but you can push a crop 14-bit RAW pretty hard as well.

Even high ISO at smaller print sizes is becoming more difficult to discern, though ISOs like 6400 and 12800 still clearly show off FF's light gathering advantage. But if Scott Kelby's samples are any indication...a crop 7D mark II will be usable at 16,000 for an 8x10. FF would look better even at 8x10 at that ISO, but how much better? It's ridiculous how good we have it.

We are far too concerned with minutia at a time when equipment is...by a wide margin...the best it has ever been.

4
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:36:17 AM »
Perhaps I should read all of the prior six pages (and even some 7Dii reviews), but I suspect we're only having this discussion because Canon crop sensors are lagging a bit.

 ::)

No, they're not. Not in actual resolved detail as opposed to MP count. And not in high ISO, at least not for crop. Indeed it looks like the 7D2 has the best high ISO to date. (Still waiting on Samsung samples to appear.)

It also looks like the 7D2 may have dealt with banding issues. (Can't know for sure until it ships and/or RAWs are made available which allow one to explicitly test this.) Though it also looks like Sony still holds the crown for recovered shadow detail at base ISO.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:09:06 PM »
Naive and simplistic. What does crop 'win'?

I've made 16x20" prints of surfers where I ended up with 8-9 MP after cropping further into 7D files. FF couldn't have done that.

Agreed if you don't have to crop any further then the initial crop to match 1.6x and/or you don't print large it really doesn't matter.

6
Reviews / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:00:33 PM »
There's a lot to like about the D750. For me, the kickers are the price, WIFI, and tilt screen. Some people consider WIFI and a tilt screen to be "consumer grade" items, but there are many times I'm on assignment that both would come in handy. The extra DR is merely an added bonus.

Absolutely, and I certainly don't want to come off as biased against it. IMHO the D750 means Canon should drop the price on the 5D3 until the 5D4 is available.

7
Reviews / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:58:57 PM »
No it's not. Generally you have to get into 3+ stop push territory before there's a difference.

even with 2-3 stops the canon will not look as clean.
you can see that in examples all over the web.

You can see that when people turn off all NR.

Quote
mabye, but i often wish i could somehow get just 1-2 stop more DR out of my canon RAWs.
would not give me a proper exposed outside but made things way better.
it´s seems nikon can do that without a problem.

then look at the 5D Mk3 picture in the review, they are unusable.

They are not 1-2 stops underexposed.

You can routinely push Canon RAW files 1-2 stops, but you will want to play with the NR sliders in ACR when doing so. People seem to be afraid of those things. CNR hardly affects detail, and there's room on LNR before detail starts getting smudged.

8
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:55:25 PM »


Meh, another DR war...

Well I was hoping somebody would explain to me how making something smaller increases its luminosity recording capacity, which is the common way of determining 'photographic DR' as per my earlier link, it seems all posters seem to want to do is come back with 'sensor DR'.

Because last Thursday at DxO many scientists did science stuff and proved it with science. So stop misinforming people because clearly you do not understand science like the many scientists...at DxO...who are all about science.

I said SCIENCE!  ;D

9
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:50:10 PM »
Meh, another DR war...

Best point made so far  ;D

10
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:49:32 PM »
Quote
Quote
In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.

Very small?

Yes. Canon sensors are not blocking up a lot sooner then an Exmor sensor (though they do block up a little sooner). But the noise makes detail in the lowest tones unacceptable, when pushed higher on the scale, for most photographic purposes.

Quote
Yes, let's refer to Ansel Adams to talk about sensor DR. Because sensors totally existed back then.

They did. They were called "film."

Quote
But the reality of it is that you measure dynamic range of sensors in a different way.

The definition and model of photographic dynamic range does not change based on capture medium.

Quote
Quoting Ansel Adams is particularly ironic, given how scientific and quantitative he was.

I think it's ironic that you praise him in one breath, then use a false statement to hand wave his entire body of work with the very next breath.

Quote
I think I understand what the actual problem is. You're not actually talking about camera DR.

Wrong again.

Quote
Please stop knocking what you clearly don't understand.

Please stop committing fallacy after fallacy after...why even waist the keyboard strokes, you won't.

11
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:25:53 PM »
And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?

Oh, I see. I suppose we should appeal to... you?

I gave you a specific experiment to try. Try it.

12
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:24:54 PM »
Observation trumps theory. Every. Time.

Not when you're observing completely wrong.

LOL! That's a new one. "My theory is right if you just observe the way I want you to."  ;D

Quote
You're not even looking at the darker patches of the wedge, are you?

Of course I have.

Quote
Many photographers have already observed the stops upon stops of difference in DR.

"Stops upon stops"...kind of like appealing to "scientists upon scientists who do science stuff so you're wrong BECAUSE SCIENCE!"

In all examples to date the actual total DR difference is very small. Noise is very different which of course affects latitude and what is acceptable when exercising said latitude on the shadow side.

Quote
How, prey, do photographers measure it, then? Please, enlighten us.

http://www.amazon.com/Negative-Ansel-Adams-Photography-Book/dp/0821221868

Quote
Like I said, it's *you* who has something to prove, not the image scientists at DxO,

Who? Names? Credentials? Published papers? Who critiqued their papers? Who replicated their experiments? Did they succeed? Does any of that matter if we're talking about two different things?

We have to get past your fallacies before we can make any progress on your misunderstanding of DR as it applies in a photographic context.

13
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:11:52 PM »
What's grey? You know it depends on your monitor, right? Or your processing?

In this context? Recordable tones, which does not depend on a monitor.

Quote
So what do you mean there's not much noise at base ISO?

Noise does not obscure patches that would otherwise be distinguishable.

Quote
Are you doing any statistical analyses? If you're not, you're not actually measuring DR. Period.

Guess Ansel Adams never measured DR  ::)

Quote
dtaylor: Also, by calling DxO wrong consistently, you're arguing that you're more right than a bunch of image scientists. You have a lot to prove there, my friend.

And there it is...an appeal to authority. If you can't grasp logic 101 how can you grasp the difference I am trying to point out to you?

14
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 07:03:04 PM »
K, I'm with msm. I just give up. It's not about black squares turning grey. DR is measured from statistical analysis.

Photographers do not measure it this way. And it's not a simple matter of semantics because your "engineering DR" model fails to predict what photographers observe in the field.

Quote
DxO's definition of DR is correct.

Observation trumps theory. Every. Time.

Quote
Just stop. Stop completely misinforming people.

Were you typing to yourself?

15
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:33:08 PM »
No, again, the definition of engineering DR...

...is not the definition of photographic DR. DxO should not be publishing graphs that are labeled in Ev or stops if they are using a model which is different from the model that predicts what photographers will see with their own two eyes.

Quote
Whether or the sensor accurately recorded the tone or not...

...is a separate question.

Quote
Wait, what? How do you do a SNR analysis - which is the proper way to measure DR quantitatively - if you throw away the signal??

Re-read this until you fully understand the implications: You are confusing signal (tone variations across 2D space) with dynamic range (the brightest and darkest tones that can be recorded). So is DxO. Down sampling lets you confidently say that yes, in this tiny region of 2D space we really did detect a tone variation and not just noise fluctuations. It does not mean you recorded a lower min tone.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53